Intel launched as many as 16 new processors over the weekend, including 11 desktop socket LGA1155, and 5 mobile chips. The new wave includes several new sub-$100 parts covering key price-points, and carrying the Pentium and Celeron brands. Leading the pack is a new quad-core chip that is sure to strike a price-performance sweetspot: the Core i5-2320. This chip displaces the Core i5-2300 from its price-point of US $177, and is faster. While the i5-2300 is nominally clocked at 2.80 GHz, the i5-2320 runs at 3.00 GHz. Another significant introduction here is the Core i3-2130, which displaces the i3-2120 from its price-point of $139. The new dual-core chip is clocked at 3.40 GHz, 100 MHz faster than the chip it's displacing.

Then there's another kind of change, the Core i3-2125. This chip is identically clocked with the i3-2120 at 3.30 GHz, but it might be tweaked in other parameters (such as GPU clock speed, feature-set, etc). Core i3-2120T is a new low-power desktop chip, that's clocked at 2.60 GHz, and nearly half the rated TDP, at 35W. Then there's a trio of Pentium-branded dual-core chips, including the G630T, G860, and G630, clocked at 2.30 GHz, 3.00 GHz, and 2.70 GHz, displacing the G620T, G850, and G620, respectively.

Scraping the $50 mark at $52 is Celeron G540, clocked at 2.50 GHz, followed by Celeron G530 (2.40 GHz), that is $10 cheaper. Celeron G530T is a low-power chip, with 35W TDP, clocked at 2.00 GHz, and priced at $47. The Priced at no more than $37, the Celeron G440 is a single-core chip clocked at 1.60 GHz.

With mobile processors, Intel introduced a new extreme performance chip, the Core i7-2960XM. Armed with 4 cores clocked at 2.70 GHz, 8 threads with HyperThreading enabled, 8 MB of L3 cache, and 55W TDP, this chip is in the contention for being the fastest notebook processor ever made. It is available to manufacturers at US $1096 a piece. Trailing this are two more quad-core chips. The Core i7-2860QM quad-core processor is clocked at 2.50 GHz, and features HyperThreading and the full 8 MB of L3 cache. This one is priced at US $568. Next up is the Core i7-2760QM. Clocked at 2.40 GHz, this chip features HyperThreading, but has only 6 MB of L3 cache enabled. The TDP doesn't change, though. It is priced at $378. The last new Core mobile chip is the i7-2640M dual-core, which features HyperThreading yielding it 4 threads, and 4 MB of L3 cache. Its TDP is rated at 35W. Last but not the least, there's Celeron B840 dual-core, clocked at 1.90 GHz, which lacks HyperThreading, and features 2 MB of L3 cache. This one is priced at a modest $86.

by: Steevoreally if you are building/buying would anyone want to buy a $52 chip instead of a $100 one with twice or three times the power?

I have never understood the crap chips unless they are defects and they have alot it is silly.

If I am building an HTPC or home server then I would buy the $52 chip. It is about picking the right parts for a job. Why would I wast an extra $50 on a CPU when all I need it to do is boot a media server a stream to one or two outputs?

when i first saw the title, i was shitting my pants as i thought they were already releasing a 2500k Killer, I genuinely feared for my life as i thought i was gonna be religated to the 'last generation' category.

by: TheLaughingManIf I am building an HTPC or home server then I would buy the $52 chip. It is about picking the right parts for a job. Why would I wast an extra $50 on a CPU when all I need it to do is boot a media server a stream to one or two outputs?

Then you have a weak HTPC. I want my HTPC to be able to record and encode 2 (or more) programs on the fly, while still being able to watch a 1080p movie and/or surf if needed, all in software to get the best possible quality (as hardware de/encoders have lower quality output). Not to mention, might as well use it as a media/general purpose server for the rest of the house. One powerful computer vs several weaker computers to do the same tasks.

Probably cost roughly the same as several smaller computers, but reduces network complexity significantly.

by: Steevoreally if you are building/buying would anyone want to buy a $52 chip instead of a $100 one with twice or three times the power?

I have never understood the crap chips unless they are defects and they have alot it is silly.

Save $50, yeah I would if I didn't need the extra power. And it isn't anywher near 2-3 times faster. $100 gets you a i3-2100, only 600MHz faster and an extra 1MB of cache. 90% of users are never going to notice the difference.

Though I'm just annoyed that you can overclocked them(and this is probably why I will skip 1155 entirely). I like nothing more than to take a $50 CPU, overclock the snot out of it, and enjoy really good performance from it for next to no cost.

by: Wile EThen you have a weak HTPC. I want my HTPC to be able to record and encode 2 (or more) programs on the fly, while still being able to watch a 1080p movie and/or surf if needed, all in software to get the best possible quality (as hardware de/encoders have lower quality output). Not to mention, might as well use it as a media/general purpose server for the rest of the house. One powerful computer vs several weaker computers to do the same tasks.

Probably cost roughly the same as several smaller computers, but reduces network complexity significantly.

I see this as little late start for Intel moving their binned chips they've amassed over time as is standard practice. It probably indicates that regular Sandy Bridge production is winding or has wound down, and Intel will sustain those (regular) SKU’s at current pricing, and let these cost effective offerings do the work in the trenches for the next couple of months.

I sense Intel is secure in its placement/and price for the regular SKU’s and no reason to cut price for those anytime soon, while they add such "carrot's" to dangle in front of those considering AMD's next architecture or those looking for an upgrade of there LGA1155.

It all appears fairly straight-forward group of offerings, though Intel probably waited this long as they didn’t have a really good feel on how to address the features or what to cut verse price as their "in-tel" for what AMD has planned has been really difficult to amass. Honestly, I think they're working more from conjecture and these chip are released with their best understanding, such low prices on these new chips somewhat revealing to what AMD might bestow come the 19th.

by: Wile EThen you have a weak HTPC. I want my HTPC to be able to record and encode 2 (or more) programs on the fly, while still being able to watch a 1080p movie and/or surf if needed, all in software to get the best possible quality (as hardware de/encoders have lower quality output). Not to mention, might as well use it as a media/general purpose server for the rest of the house. One powerful computer vs several weaker computers to do the same tasks.

Probably cost roughly the same as several smaller computers, but reduces network complexity significantly.

You would be amazed at how little power recording and watching HD streams at the same time actually needs. And software does not decode better. It simple applies post processor to improve the visual quality, something that can be done on a hardware decoded signal.

Additional power is only needed when multiple uses are using the same machine, then you need more threads, not more power.

More power doesn't have to equate to more noise. That's what water cooling or remote placement is for.

by: TheLaughingManYou would be amazed at how little power recording and watching HD streams at the same time actually needs. And software does not decode better. It simple applies post processor to improve the visual quality, something that can be done on a hardware decoded signal.

Additional power is only needed when multiple uses are using the same machine, then you need more threads, not more power.

In my experience, software post processing looks better than hardware post processing. I'd rather use standard ffdshow any day over any of the hardware decoders I've seen thus far.
Then there's the quality difference in cpu vs hardware encoding as well. I also haven't seen a hardware encoder that can produce the same quality at the same bitrates as a cpu encoder.

More threads = more power. They are talking dual core in an HTPC, I am saying it's inadequate for HTPC use if you want to do more than one or 2 things at a time on the machine. If that's really all you want out of it, then ok, low powered dual core is fine, but I think consolidating multiple purposes into a single machine would be a wiser option, meaning something more than that low end dual core would be a worthy investment.

by: Wile EMore power doesn't have to equate to more noise. That's what water cooling or remote placement is for.

In my experience, software post processing looks better than hardware post processing. I'd rather use standard ffdshow any day over any of the hardware decoders I've seen thus far.
Then there's the quality difference in cpu vs hardware encoding as well. I also haven't seen a hardware encoder that can produce the same quality at the same bitrates as a cpu encoder.

More threads = more power. They are talking dual core in an HTPC, I am saying it's inadequate for HTPC use if you want to do more than one or 2 things at a time on the machine. If that's really all you want out of it, then ok, low powered dual core is fine, but I think consolidating multiple purposes into a single machine would be a wiser option, meaning something more than that low end dual core would be a worthy investment.

A CPU is hardware. And I was talking more along tasks that do better with higher clock rates like single thread applications such as video/music playback. And I did say use the hardware for post processing. All a decoder on say a TV tuner does is decode the signal and convert from one format to another. Once it is in your computer, you can do whatever you want with it. I agree with you that if you plan to do post processing or try to run an entire houses media setup from one system, you will need far better equipment.

As this is not the scenario I was thinking of, I don't think that would be needed for say a single man living with 1 roommate. The point is these processors have a marketing place even if that is not you. Some people don't need an HTPC to do more than two or three things.

But I will let you have this one and just agree to not buy low power Intel chips. AMD all the way in that market. :toast: